Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Well, since we were in Columbus for M-OSU, Benny and I didn't see any other games this weekend except for the USC-Cal game. So, I guess you could say this ballot was submitted the same way most "professional" pollsters submit their ballots -- via ESPN recaps and newspaper coverage Sunday.

In our latest poll, the most controversial of our rankings will probably be Michigan staying at #2. But after much discussion, we both believe that's where they should stay. Michigan has defeated two Top 10 teams with their lone loss coming to the #1 team on the road. USC's loss to that other OSU was a bad one and we still aren't 100% sold on UF.

25 comments:

Anonymous
said...

The only problem is that we don't know how tough the Big Ten really is. It may be that neither OSU or Michigan has beaten anyone really, other than Notre Dame and Texas, and OSU's win against Michigan. If the Big Ten is a joke, hypothetically, these two team may be overrated.

SEC and PAC-10 very well could be much tougher than the Big Ten, this year anyway.

Clemson moving up 3 spots on a bye week?!? Their last game before the bye was a home lost to Maryland. I'm sorry, maybe you didn't hear me, I said, "MARYLAND- AT HOME IN DEATH VALLEY, TIGERS LOST!" Clemson, where the sheeop live in fear. It's rivalry week down here and you move them up three spots? I'm not sure the Cock'nFire needed any more wood on the fire, but we appreciate it. Tiggers are going down on Saturday.

I agree that Michigan is the 2nd best team in the country but I have a huge problem with ranking them number 2. When you lose, you fall. Always been that way, at least until... this week. By voting Michigan number two, you undermine the beauty and uniqueness of college football: REGULAR SEASON GAMES MATTER. Moreover, in the absence of a playoff, November should be treated like a playoff. Assuring that the best two teams in the country reach the title is a disservice to fans. By doing so, you are saying that "even if OSU betas us, we still play for the national title." That's ridiculous. Very rarely do the two best teams in any sport play each other for the title. Were Detroit and ST Louis the best two baseball teams? I don't think so. Were Pittsburgh and Seattle the best? Once again I don't think so.

By cirumventing the traditional philosophy of voting, you have diminished the value of a regualr season Michigan-Ohio St game. You may not realize it, being at the game and experiencing the emotion of it all, but to me, a college football fan with no allegiance to either school, a rematch has done me a disservice.

I disagree, Foster. Putting Michigan at #2 is the perfect answer. It assures that if USC or Florida, or Arkansas win out, they will jump Michigan, but Notre Dame probably will not. If Michigan were ranked behind all of these teams (which would be an injustice because regular season games DO count, like USC losing to Oregon St, Arkansas losing to USC, Florida losing to Auburn, Notre Dame losing to Michigan), then Notre Dame or West Virginia might jump them to play Ohio St... and I think most would agree that if USC, Arkansas, and Florida all lose, THEN Michigan DOES deserve a rematch.

So Anon 6:21, following your logic, Wisconsin should be #3 then?!? Their only lost is to the #2 team. I agree, that's redonkulous. Michigan has only played 2 tough teams this year, period. I know I wear SEC sunglasses way too much, but I really don't see how SoCal belongs above UofF after their loss (I can see So Cal above Arky after winning at Arky), I'd put OSU, UofF, SoCal, Arky, and Michigan, but certainly believe as far as talent goes, any of the top 5 could be interchanged. Talent only plays a part (a huge part I agree), but schedule has to account for something. A team's only claim for #2 cannot be because of a close game (but a loss) to #1. As a previous poster mentioned, the rankings will sort themselves out as the season concludes this week with LSU-Arky, UofF-FSU, and SoCal-ND games.

Someone else pointed out at this site that Michigan will be pre-season #1 next year. I would certainly agree with that.

#2 is just right. I also disagree with Foster. You rank the teams where you think they are, and I haven't seen anything to make me believe anyone out there is better (except tOSU). If USC wins out impressively, they probably will earn the right to be beaten by the Bucks, but they're the only team I could stomach being ahead of U-M.

Has anyone watched ESPN at all this year, Lee Corso, Lou Holtz all of their talking bobble heads have told you all year that Cal is the best thing sinced sliced bread, no way in hell USC can beat them even at their Home stadium! Well they did and the defense shut down Cal's "high-powered offense" the second half I don't think that Cal got a first down in the second half until the 4th quarter when USC went into a somewhat prevent defense.

The Reason that Michigan is ahead of USC right now is simple. Michigan has already played 12 games USC 10. If USC wins out they will easily jump Michigan. I love Michigan my daughter goes there, but Michigan needs to learn the same lesson that the SEC does, don't schedule gimme games when you want to be considered in the top at the end of the year. Ball State and games like that hurt you even if you win in your strength of schedule. USC played 9 conference games, out of conference Arkansas, Nebraska and Notre Dame. Florida had a really strong conference schedule, but they play pansie out of conference games.

I, for the second time since it's been in exsistence, agree with the BCS concerning the top three. Michigan still #2 with all chances of USC moving up when/if they win out. I agree with your top 6 and past that I really don't care too much.

Jim you said, "schedule has to account for something." I probably look through those same SEC glasses (although I'm a UM fan, I'm from and still in SC so I have love for the conference), but Florida just played a 1-AA team. And their last game against a decent team they struggled to beat the Gamecocks. I said this in one of the other post, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Florida struggled against FSU this week and right now I would pick Arky to win the SEC Championship.

As much as I love Michigan, I will always be one of those people that say the SEC is the best and toughest conference in the country. But the teams really need to start either scheduling other BCS conference teams or mid-major 1-A teams (ie. MAC teams) for it OOC schedule. WCU shouldn't be showing up the third week of November on a big time team competing for a MNC.

Mich fucked themselves over this year with the schedule....Forget the Ball State and Central michigan, but why end so early? I bet if Mich had another game this weekend they would be in a lot better standings come the final BCS numbers.

Cal licks balls....Seriously...They have been living off their win against SC 4 years ago and how they almost knocked off SC 3 years ago. While other Pac-10 teams have strived to improve, Cal seems to be content with the same old shit.

TexasWisconsinNotre DamePenn State (who could hang with any conference)

Sec, yeah tougher conference, the Pac 10 is overrrated. Oregon, ASU, Cal, all overrated, the best stories in that conference is Arizona making a bowl and UW being .500. No way they are a better conference. Arkansas has right to be there if they win out or if Florida just lays the wood to Arkansas then they should be there, but Florida has been pedestrian all year with the talent that they have

I agree with the comment above ... Michigan should have dropped in the polls. For better or worse, college football's simple logic has always been you lose, you drop. How far is tempered by the polls' interpretation of the outcome and any mitigating factors (e.g., final score, ranked vs. unranked opponent, home vs. away, etc.). That's how the system ensures that other teams get a bite at the apple. It's also why we have this convoluted debate almost every year. We need a playoff system like every other respectable sport.

Yeah, scheduling a D-II team wasn't cool of UofF, or any SEC team for that matter. We (Cocks) had Wofford this year because of pressure from state legislators for more in-state games. Same reason we have to play SC State next year (or '08- can't remember). For SoCal fans to keep pissing and moaning about SEC powers not playing a tougher OOC deserves the same age-old response until they understand - we generally don't need a tough OOC schedule because we have a meat-grinder in-conference schedule. We'd kill for any Pac-10 conf schedule or even a Big Ten schedule (this year). Not saying SEC is better, but if the Cocks only had to face ND, WI, and OSU this year, we'd likely have better bowling prospects right now instead of a no-name bowl in a no-name locale. I'm not putting any other team down by saying that. You can only play the schedule on the books and you have to win against that schedule- something the Cocks didn't do. I do sincerely applaud SoCal for playing Nebraska, Arky, and ND. In year's past SoCal has had Auburn on their OOC (among others) and that's great, but until a few of the others- AZ, ASU, Wash, Wash St, return to glory years and Cal, OR, and/or OSU (Beavers) demonstrate sustained prowess, there's a reason SoCal schedules big OOC games.I mean no disrespect to SoCal- if you go to Glendale with only 1-loss over a one-loss SEC team, I'll be disappointed but certainly won't have a right to cry foul any more than SoCal does if Arky or UofF goes with one loss. The top 5 teams are potentially very interchangeable in terms of talent on any given day. That being said, Michigan did look pretty freaking damn scary good against a supposed great defense.

Um, where the hell is Hawaii? There's a Hawaii alumni site on the internet that you can pay ten bucks to watch their games via streaming video, and it's well worth the money. They are f-ing STACKED. The game that I saw, they were down something like 17-9 a few minutes into the second quarter, and proceeded to go on a 51-0 (!) run.

I'm pretty sure their game versus Purdue is on espn this weekend, and I encourage everyone to tune it (it won't start until 10 pm, probably).

I think they've scored 68 points twice this season, and are averaging 62 a game over their past seven or eight games. These guys are so explosive it's not even funny. Actually, it is kind of funny. Ha, ha!

Question: If you use the logic that "you lose, you drop", then certainly you must agree that you win, and you hold your spot or move up accordingly based on the number of teams ahead of you that lose, right? So when Florida looks like dogshit and scabs out a win over South Carolina, they should have stayed ahead of USC, who spanked #21 Oregon the same week, right?

There is such a good thing as a "good" loss, and such a thing as a bad win. Why shouldn't U-M be ahead of USC at this juncture? USC had a loss to a 7-4 team, which was preceded by 3 wins of 7 or less points in a row over very iffy teams. U-M lost by 3 on the road to the undisputed #1 team in the country after pretty well breezing in every game the whole year.

You rank the teams based on where you feel they rank in the big picture. I'm sure most voters asked the question "Would USC have won against tOSU @ tOSU? Would it have even been that close?" and I bet most of their answers were no and no. Therefore, U-M should still be second (for now anyway).

I simply don't buy this bullshit that if you lose you MUST drop. In case you didn't figure that out.

2 L's, you're taking away too damn much credit from the Ass-Kicking Chickens of South Carolina. (Afterall, we have a much better record than Michigan against OSU in the last 6 years. - while true, I merely point it out in sarc.)

Was Michigan's victory over Ball State a "breeze" or a "scab-out"? Hell, Ball State was driving and came up short in the final drive to tie (albeit they would have needed a 2-pt conv), but similar situation as UofF's win over SC. SC had losses like Ball State's to Mihcigan all year to Auburn, Tenn, and UofF - final drive coming up short for the tie/win. South Carolina is no Ball State.

Also, I seem to recall threads upon threads on here lamenting UofM's performance in the early games against the not-so-powerhouses Vandy, game#2 - whoever that was, and WI. Either they were "breezes" and the threads on here about those games were BS, or they weren't "breezes" and your comment on them "breezing" is BS. I have no real problem with Michigan being #2, if for nothing else than a tribute to a fantastic coach who helped define what college football is today. As all agree, assuming the teams still playing continue to win, it may be tough for Big Blue to cling to their spot, especially with the 7-thousandths of a lead over Southern Cal in the BCS ratings.

1st of all, I'm not in anyway denigrating South Carolina. My contention is they should have won that game. But c'mon, you're at the Swamp against a team that beat Wofford by 7. You should do better than that.

Ball State- Up 18, put it on cruise control a little early. No excuses for it, really.

Vanderbilt- You mean the same team Florida beat by 6?

As far as your comments on the Wisconsin and Vandy games... my definition of them as a breeze (and if you read my original post, you'll see I wrote "pretty well breezing in every game this year", emphasis on pretty well) is based on the fact that I never felt during ANY game this year prior to Saturday that Michigan was going to lose. The Vandy, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ball State,and Penn State games were all relatively close, but if you were watching them, you knew that the D was going to give up enough points to lose. The Ball St. game was the real odd one of the bunch...I think they switched it off mentally and physically when they got up 18, and to Ball State's credit, they did not and gave em a hell of a game. It happens sometimes, and when you shut it down too early, it's hard as hell to get it going again.

As far as Michigan staying #2, I realize that if USC wins out, they'll go to Glendale, and I'm okay with that...even though I don't think they're better than Michigan.

Why do we even have to do any rankings what-so-ever? THE Ohio State University has already defeated all of the competition. The rest of the I-A schools are all pretenders including the school up north. Just send the National Title to Columbus and we will let the wolv-a-losers polish it for us. Consider that your consolation prize. Go BUCKS! Michigan Sucks!

Anon 3:28 - you're funny and epitomize everyone's stereotype of OSU fans (with my apologies to real OSU football fans). First off, you won a very, very close game to Michigan, at home, with friendly fans, in a mf'ing loud stadium. Do you do the same in AA or Glendale? Next, your only other competition is, as Texas fans admit, not very much competition this year for a top ranked team. So try scheduling a SoCal or power from the SEC before claiming you defeated _all_ of the competition. I'm not saying you won't, but you haven't yet.

2 L's - I'm really impressed you remember the Wofford score difference, let alone that we played them. I agree with the thought that not during a single game leading up to Falluja, did I believe Michigan would lose any of them, and if that's what you meant by "pretty much breezing', I'm with you.

Now in unison, "Clemson will lose Saturday!"(why do I get all of the f'ing hard word verifications???)

Follow the MZone

Subscribe To

The MZone-slash-MichiganZone.net-slash-MichiganZone.blogspot.com is in no way affiliated with the University of Michigan and/or U-M football in any way. If you thought it was, frankly I'm surprised you know how to use a computer.